Assessing how global health partnerships function: an equity-informed critical interpretive synthesis

A framework for identifying opportunities for multisectoral action for drowning prevention in health and sustainable development agendas: a multimethod approach

INTRODUCTION

The 2023 World Health Assembly resolution 76.18 committed the World Health Organization to the coordination of drowning prevention efforts, including those of United Nations (UN) agencies. Here, we aim to map drowning prevention linkages across UN Agency agendas, make recommendations to guide global strategies and inform the development of the Global Alliance and a Global Strategy for drowning prevention.

METHODS

We applied a qualitative multimethod approach, including document review, key informant interviews, an interagency workshop and international conference panel discussion, to refine data and create our recommendations. We developed a framework to identify intersections between health and sustainable development agendas and applied it to map intersections and opportunities for the integration of drowning prevention across relevant UN Agency agendas.

RESULTS

Our framework categorised intersections for drowning prevention in UN Agendas according to potential for (a) shared understandings of problems and solutions, (b) shared capacities, guidelines and resources and (c) shared governance and strategic pathways, noting that some factors overlap. We present our Position, Add, Reach and Reframe approach to outlining opportunities for the integration of drowning prevention in health and sustainable development agendas. Our results emphasise the importance of establishing approaches to the Global Alliance and Global Strategy that ensure high-level political advocacy is converted into solutions for affected communities. We recommend using research to inform effective action, building capacity and best practices, and promoting evaluation frameworks to incentivise and verify progress.

CONCLUSION

Our study identifies opportunities to expand drowning prevention efforts and to build Member State capacity to reduce drowning risk through evidence-informed measures that address vulnerabilities, exposures, hazards and build population-level resilience to drowning. Our framework for identifying opportunities for integration of drowning prevention across a multisectoral set of agendas offers a research and policy toolkit that may prove useful for other policy areas.

Virtual global health education partnerships for health professional students: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Although there is rising interest in virtual global health (GH) education in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been no report on the body of literature describing virtual education partnerships for health professional students. This scoping review examines virtual GH partnerships involving health professional students, including any barriers identified or best practices and ways to address them.

METHODS

We searched PubMed for studies describing virtual GH education partnerships using keywords related to GH, virtual learning, and partnerships. Inclusion criteria were that the activity was virtual, involved health professional students in two or more countries, and was reported in English or Spanish. In-person clinical electives and interventions that had not yet occurred were excluded. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).

RESULTS

The search algorithm yielded 308 articles. Seventeen studies met full inclusion criteria. Four studies described asynchronous formats, whereas 13 were synchronous. Common challenges included scheduling challenges, language barriers, and technological limitations. Suggested improvements included having increased faculty support and expanding partnerships to multiple languages. The median MERSQI score was 8.25 out of 18 possible points.

CONCLUSION

There are limited studies investigating the effectiveness of virtual GH education partnerships, and more robust evaluation is needed to further understand the optimal role of virtual education in teaching GH skills. Despite logistical challenges, virtual partnerships can provide innovative GH education through bidirectional educational exchanges that students find valuable.

An evaluation of a multi-partner approach to increase routine immunization coverage in six northern Nigerian States

BACKGROUND

Global health partnerships are increasingly being used to improve coordination, strengthen health systems, and incentivize government commitment for public health programs. From 2012 to 2022, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and Aliko Dangote Foundation (ADF) forged Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) partnership agreements with six northern state governments to strengthen routine immunization (RI) systems and sustainably increase immunization coverage. This mixed methods evaluation describes the RI MoUs contribution to improving program performance, strengthening capacity and government financial commitment as well as towards increasing immunization coverage.

METHODS

Drawing from stakeholder interviews and a desk review, we describe the MoU inputs and processes and adherence to design. We assess the extent to which the program achieved its objectives as well as the benefits and challenges by drawing from a health facility assessment, client exit interview and qualitative interviews with service providers, community leaders and program participants. Finally, we assess the overall impact of the MoU by evaluating trends in immunization coverage rates.

RESULTS

We found the RI MoUs across the six states to be mostly successful in strengthening health systems, improving accountability and coordination, and increasing the utilization of services and financing for RI. Across all six states, pentavalent 3 vaccine coverage increased from 2011 to 2021 and in some states, the gains were substantial. For example, in Yobe, vaccination coverage increased from 10% in 2011 to nearly 60% in 2021. However, in Sokoto, the change was minimal increasing from only 4% in 2011 to nearly 8% in 2021. However, evaluation findings indicate that issues pertaining to human resources for health, insecurity that inhibits supportive supervision and vaccine logistics as well as harmful socio-cultural norms remain a persistent challenge in the states. There is also a need for a rigorous monitoring and evaluation plan with well-defined measures collected prior to and throughout implementation.

CONCLUSION

Introducing a multi-partner approach grounded in a MoU agreement provides a promising approach to addressing health system challenges that confront RI programs.

Factors shaping network emergence: A cross-country comparison of quality of care networks in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda

The Quality-of-Care Network (QCN) was conceptualized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and other global partners to facilitate learning on and improve quality of care for maternal and newborn health within and across low and middle-income countries. However, there was significant variance in the speed and extent to which QCN formed in the involved countries. This paper investigates the factors that shaped QCN's differential emergence in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Malawi, and Uganda. Drawing on network scholarship, we conducted a replicated case study of the four country cases and triangulated several sources of data, including a document review, observations of national-level and district level meetings, and key informant interviews in each country and at the global level. Thematic coding was performed in NVivo 12. We find that QCN emerged most quickly and robustly in Bangladesh, followed by Ethiopia, then Uganda, and slowest and with least institutionalization in Malawi. Factors connected to the policy environment and network features explained variance in network emergence. With respect to the policy environment, pre-existing resources and initiatives dedicated to maternal and newborn health and quality improvement, strong data and health system capacity, and national commitment to advancing on synergistic goals were crucial drivers to QCN's emergence. With respect to the features of the network itself, the embedding of QCN leadership in powerful agencies with pre-existing coordination structures and trusting relationships with key stakeholders, inclusive network membership, and effective individual national and local leadership were also crucial in explaining QCN's speed and quality of emergence across countries. Studying QCN emergence provides critical insights as to why well-intentioned top-down global health networks may not materialize in some country contexts and have relatively quick uptake in others, and has implications for a network's perceived legitimacy and ultimate effectiveness in producing stated objectives.

Interview study exploring how global health partnership principles are enacted and recommendations for practice

BACKGROUND

Effective global health partnerships can strengthen and improve health and healthcare systems across the world; however, establishing and maintaining effective partnerships can be challenging. Principles of Partnerships have been developed to improve the quality and effectiveness of health partnerships. It is unclear how principles are enacted in practice, and current research has not always included the voices of low-income and middle-income country partners. This study aimed to explore how The Tropical Health and Education Trust's nine Principles of Partnership are enacted in practice, from the points of view of partners from low-income, middle-income and high-income countries, to help improve partnerships' quality and sustainability.

METHODS

People who had been a part of previous and/or ongoing health partnerships were interviewed virtually. Participants were purposefully sampled and interviews were conducted using an appreciative inquiry approach. Audio recordings were transcribed and deductive framework analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

13 participants from 8 partnerships were interviewed. Six participants were based in the low-income or middle-income countries and seven in the UK. Key findings identified strategies that enacted 'successful' and 'effective' partnerships within the Principles of Partnerships. These included practical techniques such as hiring a project manager, managing expectations and openly sharing information about the team's expertise and aspirations. Other strategies included the importance of consulting behavioural science to ensure the partnerships consider longevity and sustainability of the partnership.

DISCUSSION

Core principles to effective partnerships do not work in isolation of each other; they are intertwined and are complimentary to support equitable partnerships. Good communication and relationships built on trust which allow all partners to contribute equally throughout the project are core foundations for sustainable partnerships. Recommendations for established and future partnerships include embedding behavioural scientists/psychologists to support change to improve the quality and sustainability of health partnerships.

Challenges and Opportunities for Paving the Road to Global Health Equity Through Implementation Science

Implementation science focuses on enhancing the widespread uptake of evidence-based interventions into routine practice to improve population health. However, optimizing implementation science to promote health equity in domestic and global resource-limited settings requires considering historical and sociopolitical processes (e.g., colonization, structural racism) and centering in local sociocultural and indigenous cultures and values. This review weaves together principles of decolonization and antiracism to inform critical and reflexive perspectives on partnerships that incorporate a focus on implementation science, with the goal of making progress toward global health equity. From an implementation science perspective, wesynthesize examples of public health evidence-based interventions, strategies, and outcomes applied in global settings that are promising for health equity, alongside a critical examination of partnerships, context, and frameworks operationalized in these studies. We conclude with key future directions to optimize the application of implementation science with a justice orientation to promote global health equity.

Authorship of Publications Supported by NCI-Funded Grants Involving Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Importance

Scientific publication is an important tool for knowledge dissemination and career advancement, but authors affiliated with institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are historically underrepresented on publications.

Objective

To assess the country income level distribution of author affiliations for publications resulting from National Cancer Institute (NCI)-supported extramural grants between 2015 and 2019, with international collaborating institutions exclusively in 1 or more LMICs.

Design and Setting

This cross-sectional study assessed authorship on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants between October 1, 2015, and September 30, 2019. Grants with collaborators in LMICs were identified in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query/View/Report and linked to publications using Dimensions for NIH, published between 2011 and 2020. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2021 to July 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Author institutional affiliation was used to classify author country and related income level as defined by the World Bank. Relative citation ratio and Altmetric data from Dimensions for NIH were used to compare citation impact measures using the Wilcoxon rank sum test.

Results

In this cross-sectional study, 159 grants were awarded to US institutions with collaborators in LMICs, and 5 grants were awarded directly to foreign institutions. These 164 grants resulted in 2428 publications, of which 1242 (51%) did not include any authors affiliated with an institution in an LMIC. In addition, 1884 (78%) and 2009 (83%) publications had a first or last author, respectively, affiliated with a high-income country (HIC). Publications with HIC-affiliated last authors also demonstrated greater citation impact compared with publications with LMIC-affiliated last authors as measured by relative citation ratios and Altmetric Attention Scores; publications with HIC-affiliated first authors also had higher Altmetric Attention Scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

This cross-sectional study suggests that LMIC-affiliated authors were underrepresented on publications resulting from NCI-funded grants involving LMICs. It is critical to promote equitable scientific participation by LMIC institutions in cancer research, including through current and planned programs led by the NCI.

Relational practices for meaningful inclusion in health research: Results of a deliberative dialogue study

INTRODUCTION

The importance of including people affected by research (e.g., community members, citizens or patient partners) is increasingly recognized across the breadth of institutions involved in connecting research with action. Yet, the increasing rhetoric of inclusion remains situated in research systems that tend to reward traditional dissemination and uphold power dynamics in ways that centre particular (privileged) voices over others. In research explicitly interested in doing research with those most affected by the issue or outcomes, research teams need to know how to advance meaningful inclusion. This study focused on listening to voices often excluded from research processes to understand what meaningful inclusion looks and feels like, and asked what contributes to being or feeling tokenized.

METHODS

In this deliberative dialogue study, 16 participants with experience of navigating social exclusions and contributing to research activities reflected on what makes for meaningful experiences of inclusion. Using a co-production approach, with a diversely representative research team of 15 that included patient and community partners, we used critically reflective dialogue to guide an inclusive process to study design and implementation, from conceptualization of research questions through to writing.

RESULTS

We heard that: research practices, partnerships and systems all contribute to experiences of inclusion or exclusion; the insufficiency or absence of standards for accountability amplifies the experience of exclusion; and inclusive practices require intention, planning, reflection and resources.

CONCLUSIONS

We offer evidence-informed recommendations for the deeply relational work and practices for inclusivity, focused on promising practices for cultivating welcoming systems, spaces and relationships.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This work reflects a co-production approach, where people who use and are affected by research results actively partnered in the research process, including study design, data-generating activities, analysis and interpretation, and writing. Several of these partners are authors of this manuscript.

Reflective questioning to guide socially just global health reform: a narrative review and expert elicitation

Recent research has highlighted the impacts of colonialism and racism in global health, yet few studies have presented concrete steps toward addressing the problems. We conducted a narrative review to identify published evidence that documented guiding frameworks for enhancing equity and inclusion in global health research and practice (GHRP). Based on this narrative review, we developed a questionnaire with a series of reflection questions related on commonly reported challenges related to diversity, inclusion, equity, and power imbalances. To reach consensus on a set of priority questions relevant to each theme, the questionnaire was sent to a sample of 18 global health experts virtually and two rounds of iterations were conducted. Results identified eight thematic areas and 19 reflective questions that can assist global health researchers and practitioners striving to implement socially just global health reforms. Key elements identified for improving GHRP include: (1) aiming to understand the historical context and power dynamics within the areas touched by the program; (2) promoting and mobilizing local stakeholders and leadership and ensuring measures for their participation in decision-making; (3) ensuring that knowledge products are co-produced and more equitably accessible; (4) establishing a more holistic feedback and accountability system to understand needed reforms based on local perspectives; and (5) applying systems thinking to addressing challenges and encouraging approaches that can be sustained long-term. GHRP professionals should reflect more deeply on how their goals align with those of their in-country collaborators. The consistent application of reflective processes has the potential to shift GHRP towards increased equity.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background

Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity.

Methods

Based on informal literature reviews and a meeting with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe some important considerations about research partnership equity in this context.

Results

We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation and dissemination, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges.

Conclusion

In aggregate, these observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

Applying a Power Analysis to Everything We Do: A Qualitative Inquiry to Decolonize the Global Health and Development Project Cycle

BACKGROUND

Global health and development (GHD) systems that centralize power in the Global North were conceived during colonialism. As a result, they often replicate unequal power structures, maintaining dogged inequities. Growing and historic calls to decolonize GHD advocate for the transfer of power to actors in the Global South. This article identifies examples of colonial legacies in today's GHD projects and offers actionable strategies to decolonize.

METHODS

From August 2021 to March 2022, 20 key informants across 15 organizations participated in interviews about their experiences and perspectives relating to the decolonization of GHD. We used deductive thematic coding to identify examples of challenges and strategies to address them across 3 project life cycle phases: conceptualization and contracting, program planning and implementation, and program evaluation and dissemination.

RESULTS

Participants described how power is maintained in the Global North, sharing countless examples across the project life cycle, including agenda-setting with minimal local participation or partnership, onerous requirements that limit grantee eligibility, Global North ownership of data collected by and in the Global South, and dissemination in languages and formats that are not easily accessible to Global South audiences. Proposed strategies to decolonize GHD projects include having built-in participatory processes and accountability mechanisms; aligning solicitations with existing local strategies; adapting the process for awarding, contracting, and evaluating investments to increase the representation and competitiveness of Global South entities; creating trusting, respectful relationships with Global South partners; and systematically applying power analyses to each step of the project life cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

GHD practitioners suggested project life cycle-based strategies for shifting power and redistributing resources, which we argue will ultimately enhance the value, impact, and sustainability of GHD programming.

Lessons Learned From Building a Global Health Partnership on Obstetric Care in Madagascar

The authors share experiences of a global health partnership that worked to promote equity through a commitment to shared values and goals, engagement and communication, and mutual trust and respect.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

Background: Use of adaptive clinical trials, particularly adaptive platform trials, has grown exponentially in response to the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Implementation of these trials in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has been fostered through the formation or modification of transnational research partnerships, typically between research groups from LMICs and high-income countries (HICs). While these partnerships are important to promote collaboration and overcome the structural and economic disadvantages faced by LMIC health researchers, it is critical to focus attention on the multiple dimensions of partnership equity. Methods: Based on informal literature reviews and meetings with leaders of one of the multinational COVID-19 adaptive platform trials, we describe what can be learned about research partnership equity from these experiences. Results: We organize these considerations into eight thematic categories: 1) epistemic structures, 2) funding, 3) ethics oversight, 4) regulatory oversight, 5) leadership, 6) post-trial access to interventions, data, and specimens, 7) knowledge translation, and 8) research capacity strengthening and maintenance. Within each category we review the normative claims that support its relevance to research partnership equity followed by discussion of how adaptive platform trials highlight new dimensions, considerations, or challenges. Conclusion: These observations provide insight into procedural and substantive equity-building measures within transnational global health research partnerships more broadly.

The political economy of infant and young child feeding: confronting corporate power, overcoming structural barriers, and accelerating progress

Despite increasing evidence about the value and importance of breastfeeding, less than half of the world's infants and young children (aged 0-36 months) are breastfed as recommended. This Series paper examines the social, political, and economic reasons for this problem. First, this paper highlights the power of the commercial milk formula (CMF) industry to commodify the feeding of infants and young children; influence policy at both national and international levels in ways that grow and sustain CMF markets; and externalise the social, environmental, and economic costs of CMF. Second, this paper examines how breastfeeding is undermined by economic policies and systems that ignore the value of care work by women, including breastfeeding, and by the inadequacy of maternity rights protection across the world, especially for poorer women. Third, this paper presents three reasons why health systems often do not provide adequate breastfeeding protection, promotion, and support. These reasons are the gendered and biomedical power systems that deny women-centred and culturally appropriate care; the economic and ideological factors that accept, and even encourage, commercial influence and conflicts of interest; and the fiscal and economic policies that leave governments with insufficient funds to adequately protect, promote, and support breastfeeding. We outline six sets of wide-ranging social, political, and economic reforms required to overcome these deeply embedded commercial and structural barriers to breastfeeding.

Protecting healthcare workers during a pandemic: what can a WHO collaborating centre research partnership contribute?

Objectives

To ascertain whether and how working as a partnership of two World Health Organization collaborating centres (WHOCCs), based respectively in the Global North and Global South, can add insights on "what works to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) during a pandemic, in what contexts, using what mechanism, to achieve what outcome".

Methods

A realist synthesis of seven projects in this research program was carried out to characterize context (C) (including researcher positionality), mechanism (M) (including service relationships) and outcome (O) in each project. An assessment was then conducted of the role of the WHOCC partnership in each study and overall.

Results

The research found that lower-resourced countries with higher economic disparity, including South Africa, incurred greater occupational health risk and had less acceptable measures to protect HCWs at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic than higher-income more-equal counterpart countries. It showed that rigorously adopting occupational health measures can indeed protect the healthcare workforce; training and preventive initiatives can reduce workplace stress; information systems are valued; and HCWs most at-risk (including care aides in the Canadian setting) can be readily identified to trigger adoption of protective actions. The C-M-O analysis showed that various ways of working through a WHOCC partnership not only enabled knowledge sharing, but allowed for triangulating results and, ultimately, initiatives for worker protection.

Conclusions

The value of an international partnership on a North-South axis especially lies in providing contextualized global evidence regarding protecting HCWs as a pandemic emerges, particularly with bi-directional cross-jurisdiction participation by researchers working with practitioners.

The Equity Tool for Valuing Global Health Partnerships

There is a need to more comprehensively identify and respond to equity in global health partnerships. The Equity Tool can support dialogue at any stage of a partnership, by individuals at any level. This assists partnerships to embrace ways of recognizing, understanding, and advancing equity in all their processes.

Global health partnerships (GHPs) involve complex relationships between individuals and organizations, often joining partners from high-income and low- or middle-income countries around work that is carried out in the latter. Therefore, GHPs are situated in the context of global inequities and their underlying sociopolitical and historical causes, such as colonization. Equity is a core principle that should guide GHPs from start to end. How equity is embedded and nurtured throughout a partnership has remained a constant challenge. We have developed a user-friendly tool for valuing a GHP throughout its lifespan using an equity lens. The development of the EQT was informed by 5 distinct elements: a scoping review of scientific published peer-reviewed literature; an online survey and follow-up telephone interviews; workshops in Canada, Burkina Faso, and Vietnam; a critical interpretive synthesis; and a content validation exercise. Findings suggest GHPs generate experiences of equity or inequity yet provide little guidance on how to identify and respond to these experiences. The EQT can guide people involved in partnering to consider the equity implications of all their actions, from inception, through implementation and completion of a partnership. When used to guide reflective dialogue with a clear intention to advance equity in and through partnering, this tool offers a new approach to valuing global health partnerships. Global health practitioners, among others, can apply the EQT in their partnerships to learning together about how to cultivate equity in their unique contexts within what is becoming an increasingly diverse, vibrant, and responsive global health community.

Barriers to decolonising educational partnerships in global health

Global health partnerships between high-income countries and low/middle-income countries can mirror colonial relationships. The growing call to advance global health equity therefore involves decolonising global health partnerships and outreach. Through decolonisation, local and international global health partners recognise non-western forms of knowledge and authority, acknowledge discrimination and disrupt colonial structures and legacies that influence access to healthcare.Despite these well-described aims, the ideal implementation process for decolonising global health remains ill-defined. This ambiguity exists, in part, because partners face barriers to adopting a decolonised perspective. Such barriers include overemphasis on intercountry relationships, implicit hierarchies perpetuated by educational interventions and ethical dilemmas in global health work.In this article, we explore the historical entanglement of education, health and colonialism. We then use this history as context to identify barriers that arise when decolonising contemporary educational global health partnerships. Finally, we offer global health partners strategies to address these challenges.